Blogger writes about predatory publishing, is threatened with $1B suit

Citing India law, firm informs Jeffrey Beall he could face up to three years too.

Metadata librarian Jeffrey Beall runs the popular industry blog Scholarly Open Access. The site maintains a list of open-access journals and publishers that Beall believes engage in predatory practices. For journals and publishers these acts include things like spamming scholars or charging faulty fees for content. The site is known simply as "Beall's list" to followers and its notoriety has earned Beall ink in places like The New York Times. (And yes, now he even receives pseudo-spammer journals who request to be featured on the site without really understanding.)

Today The Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a less amusing letter Beall received Tuesday. An Indian intellectual property management firm called IP Markets informed Beall that they would be suing for $1 billion in damages and that he could face up to three years in prison for his "deliberate attempt to defame our client." That client is OMICS Publishing Group, an India-based operation profiled several times on the blog. The group requested that Beall remove the posts and e-mail updates to anyone who published his work, yet IP Markets still intends to go through with the suit either way.

"All the allegation [sic] that you have mentioned in your blog are nothing more than fantastic figment of your imagination by you," the six-page letter reads according to The Chronicle. "Our client perceive the blog as mindless rattle of a incoherent person and please be assured that our client has taken a very serious note of the language, tone, and tenure adopted by you as well as the criminal acts of putting the same on the Internet."

The Chronicle spoke with one of the IP Markets lawyers who emphasized the potential criminality of Beall's blog under India's Information Technology Act. The particular point of contention, the often debated section 66A, makes it illegal to publish false material or "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character."

Beall has faced lawsuit threats before and other scholarly publisher bloggers have even gone to court in such situations (see Edwin Mellen Press taking on librarian Rick Anderson). Legal experts talking to The Chronicle seemed skeptical over the validity of this action, and the threatened possibility of jail time, but they did acknowledge a lawsuit in India could be more complicated than if IP Markets had filed within the US. Beall called the amount "silly" and said the case had no merit.

The wording in that bill is a perfect example of how the people need to watch closely every single line of every single law their government passes. "Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character." is preposterous. How do lawmakers come up with this stuff?

Prior family experience tends to reveal that winning a court case in India tends to go to the person who can bribe the court the most and in the least obvious ways. It helps that accusations of bribery are seen as defamation attempst and then...brought to court.

I wonder if it was 1B US or the weird crore system in India. Makes a MASSIVE difference.

Then again if that $1 Billion doesn't get you, that 'up to three years jail time' sure will. For...you know...writing stuff online.

The wording in that bill is a perfect example of how the people need to watch closely every single line of every single law their government passes. "Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character." is preposterous. How do lawmakers come up with this stuff?

Potentially because one of said lawmakers saw something offensive about himself on the internet.

I am sorry, but as soon as I see 1 Billion Dollar in damages I automatically assume it's frivolous lawsuit. If you want at least some sense or "real" threat, please give a somewhat, "less fantastic" damage amount.

Let just say the image of Dr. Evil demanding 1 million dollars comes to mind.

"All the allegation [sic] that you have mentioned in your blog are nothing more than fantastic figment of your imagination by you," .... "Our client perceive the blog as mindless rattle of a incoherent person."

In India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. The punishment can be as much as three years in prison.

Soooo...

Wait a second here.

I'm pretty sure the letter in question asking for the $1B was all of the following: grossly offensive, of menacing character, and involved publishing false information.

Isn't any resulting judgment unenforceable? (assuming he doesn't travel to India, of course)

Seems that they'd have to extradite him. What's good for the goose (Dotcom) is good for the gander (Beall).

To be extradited the law that the defendant is accused of breaking must be present in both countries. The US, thankfully, has freedom of speech. Sometimes the courts get a bad case of the stupid and seem to forget about that pesky First Amendment, but on the whole our speech protections are pretty great.

In India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. The punishment can be as much as three years in prison.

Soooo...

Wait a second here.

I'm pretty sure the letter in question asking for the $1B was all of the following: grossly offensive, of menacing character, and involved publishing false information.

"All the allegation [sic] that you have mentioned in your blog are nothing more than fantastic figment of your imagination by you," .... "Our client perceive the blog as mindless rattle of a incoherent person."

Wait, who's defaming who here?

I agree. Countersuit for 2 billion for blatant disregard of India's precious laws.

Everyone saying this law is absurd and unenforceable, beware: This sort of overzealous libel law is very common even in countries that you might not dismiss as quickly as India for being corrupt or whatever.

There was just a gigantic battle that absorbed the parliament in the United Kingdom for months. It all started with a similarly minor story by Simon Singh about chiropractors.

Isn't any resulting judgment unenforceable? (assuming he doesn't travel to India, of course)

Not entirely true: if he travels to any other country, India can ask that country to detain and extradite him.

Is that true for civil cases as well? (I assume this is a civil case...)

I don't know whether any countries have agreements to enforce each other's civil judgments (they could always ask). But then, with the threat of jail time, would this be a civil case? Or maybe if you fail to pay a civil case judgment, that failure to pay could become a criminal case.

"I strongly recommend, in the strongest terms possible, that all scholars from all countries avoid doing business in any way with the OMICS Group. Do not submit papers. Do not agree to serve on their editorial boards. Do not register for or attend their conferences."